Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers Badge
Avvo Badge
Massachusetts Bar Association
Top-Rated Lawyer
Certificate of Excellence

| by

This past Wednesday around noon members of the Bristol County Massachusetts State Police Drug Unit executed a search warrant at a third floor apartment in Fall River. During the course of the raid officers found more than five thousand Oxycodone and Suboxone pills. This was the culmination of a two month Drug Trafficking Investigation. Arrested were Jessica Crowley and Roger Levasseur. Levasseur has been identified as a Major Massachusetts Drug Trafficker. He is being charged with Conspiracy as well as Trafficking Over Two Hundred Grams of a Class A Substance. A School Zone Violation has also been added to the charges. Levasseur is facing a seventeen year minimum mandatory sentence if convicted of these crimes. Officers also located and seized over thirteen thousand dollars cash.

Read Article:

http://www.heraldnews.com/police_and_fire/x1520939839/Fall-River-police-arrest-pair-seize-5-000-pills

oxycodone_235.jpg

Massachusetts Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Where two or more people are present during the course of the execution of a search warrant the question jurors always ask is “whose drugs are these?”. The prosecution often tries to say that they belonged to everybody and that all of the people present were either principles or joint venturers in the illicit drug activity. Massachusetts law makes clear however that being “present only” is not grounds for a conviction. Many cases against people who were simply at or near the scene of a crime get dismissed. Others are rejected by juries and the defendants get acquitted. If you are charged for a Drug Crime in Massachusetts there are countless legal and factual ways to defend against the accusations. By Hiring an Experienced Massachusetts Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer you improve your chances of success.

Continue Reading

| by

As referenced in many of my blog posts more and more Investigatory Stops in Massachusetts are originating with 911 cell phone calls. These typically involve someone witnessing a crime and making an “anonymous” call. I use quotes in that the police can usually determine from caller identifications the source of the call. Now however the Bristol County District Attorney, Samuel Sutter is trying to implement a program that will permit people to send anonymous tips through text messages. I suppose anonymity under this new program will be more realistic. Police dispatchers can ask 911 callers for their name and they can often determine whether the caller was male, female, young, old or had some sort of accent. The same determination cannot be made by viewing a typical text message. However, the article suggests that the system Sutter’s office would use receives the text messages after they have been assigned two aliases so that anonymity is protected. The police would then respond to the tipster through the alias.

Read Article:

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/cops_and_courts/x53546646/Bristol-County-District-Attorney-Samuel-Sutter-looks-into-text-a-tip-service

tips.jpg

Informants in Massachusetts

There are strict requirements of reliability in Massachusetts that govern the use of Informants in Massachusetts. These requirements become relaxed when the name of the informant is provided. Thus, in cases of identified 911 callers the prosecution has a reduced burden in justifying otherwise constitutional intrusions. In the absence of disclosing the identity of the informant the district attorney must show that the informant was reliable and had a basis of knowledge for the information provided. Independent police corroboration can make up for any deficiencies in these two criteria. However, as the United States Supreme Court has stated, “If the [tip] is truly anonymous, the informant has not placed his credibility at risk and can lie with impunity. The reviewing court cannot judge the credibility of the informant and the risk of fabrication becomes unacceptable”. My opinion as a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney is that if this new program is created in Bristol County there may be some problems sustaining certain prosecutions. This will certainly make for some interesting criminal litigation.

Continue Reading

| by

Jessica Sampson is twenty three years old. She is now being held on twenty thousand dollars cash bail after supposedly stabbing her boyfriend in the chest during an argument with a kitchen knife. She is also accused of kicking the emergency medical technician in the stomach. The victim sustained stab wounds of a significant nature to his upper chest. Sampson was described as intoxicated. She has been charged with Assault and Battery, Domestic Assault and Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. The victim is apparently doing well at this time.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1030871490/Hudson-woman-charged-in-stabbing

domestic violence.jpg

Domestic Violence and Abuse

Now here is a pretty interesting statistic supported by several websites. About forty percent of all incidents of Domestic Violence and Abuse involve violence by women against men. That translates into between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand cases each year where the man is the victim. Few men report incidents of Domestic Violence however. The triggers of women abusing their husbands or boyfriends are typically alcohol abuse, psychological disorders or unrealistic expectations, assumptions and conclusions. My office is starting to see more women charged with Domestic Assault and Battery. We are also seeing more men seeking Restraining Orders against their spouses or girlfriends. Prosecutors in Massachusetts view these cases seriously no matter who the accused. If charged with this type of crime you should immediately Hire a Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

The Lowell Sun reports that 29 year old Marco P. DaSilva, has been held without bail as a result of an incident of domestic violence involving his wife. According to the Sun, DaSilva and his wife have been experiencing marital difficulties over the past months. On April 3rd DaSilva came home drunk and an argument ensued when he and his wife argued about the fact that she suspected him of having an affair. The paper reports that the argument became physical and when the police arrived at the home DaSilva’s wife has a large bruise on her neck and the house was in disarray. DaSilva was arraigned in the Lowell District Court and charged with attempted murder, assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon and intimidating a witness.

This type of case is often categorized as a case of “domestic violence.” In Massachusetts, a spouse cannot be forced to testify against his or her spouse. This is called the “marital privilege.” However, the privilege is a “trial privilege” and many counties are insisting that a case be marked for trial in order for a spouse to assert the “privilege.” Also, prosecutors can force a spouse to testify in front of a grand jury because it is not a trial. However, even if the grand jury returns and indictment, the spouse still cannot be forced to testify at a trial.

Cases of domestic assault can be dismissed if a spouse asserts his or her privilege and the Commonwealth does not have any other evidence. The types of evidence that a District Attorney’s Office often tries to introduce into evidence even if a spouse does not testify include a statement of the defendant, a “911” or “turrett tape,” pictures of injuries, medical records and any other independent witness testimony.

If you have been charged with a case of domestic assault and battery it is imperative that you have an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side. Filing appropriate motions to dismiss and exclude evidence can often be the difference between walking away from the charges and being convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor.

Continue Reading

| by

Juan Mojica used to live in Peabody, Massachusetts. In February of 2005 he was arrested after engaging in a drug deal with a confidential informant. The Lynn Item reports that after the deal was consummated police moved in on Mojica as he was leaving his home. The home was searched. Inside police found nearly three hundred sixty grams of cocaine throughout the apartment. Mojica then defaulted and fled to Puerto Rico. He was recently apprehended and now faces charges of Trafficking Cocaine in Excess of 200 Grams. This is a felony that carries a minimum mandatory fifteen year state prison sentence. The case will be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Read Article:

http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/articles/2010/04/08/news/news08.txt

cocaine package.jpg

Massachusetts Cocaine Trafficking Defense Lawyer

The use of confidential informants by law enforcement agencies creates interesting legal and strategic problems for both the defense and the district attorney in drug cases. Massachusetts law states that if the informant is a witness to the crime charged then his or her identity must be disclosed to the defense. To get around this disclosure requirement prosecutors often choose not to prosecute the crime in which the informant had involvement. Instead they use the informant’s information to investigate the defendant for other crimes. For instance, if several controlled buys are made by the informant the police might use this to obtain a warrant to search the defendant’s home or car. If drugs are located during the search the defendant will then be charged with that crime only, thereby allowing the prosecution to keep the informant’s identity concealed. Similarly, informants might be used to make introductions to undercover police officers. Once the undercover earns the suspects’ confidence he or she can directly deal with the defendant leaving the informant out of all subsequent transactions. In those situations, the initial transaction involving the informant might not be charged.

I imagine that Mojica’s Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney wil be able to convince a judge to order the informant’s disclosure in this case. To avoid compliance with this order the prosecution might agree reduce the charges in exchange for a change of plea. Alternatively, Mojica might have grounds to attack the search of his home.

Continue Reading

| by

Robert Colpitts was convicted in 1987 of Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under the Age of Fourteen. At that time he was eighteen years old. Now, at the age of forty one Colpitts is obligated under the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Laws to register as a sex offender. Authorities claim that he did not. Consequently, he has been charged with Failing to Register as a Sex Offender. Bail was set in the amount of one thousand dollars in the Marlborough District Court. Inasmuch as this is not the first time this happened Colpitts is being charged with a Subsequent Offense. Court records indicate that he was convicted of this crime back in 2005.

Read Article:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x905415595/Police-Sex-offender-fails-to-register-in-Marlborough

Sex Offender.gif

Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Laws

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 6 Section 178H requires anyone who has been convicted of certain Sex Crimes in Massachusetts to register as a sex offender. There is also a requirement that the offender verify registration at certain times and provide notice of any change of address. Failure to do so subjects an offender to six months in the house or correction and up to five years in state prison if convicted for a violation of this law. Second and subsequent offenders face a five year minimum state prison sentence. That crime must be prosecuted in the Superior Court. Here, if the prosecution does not break the case down to a first offense it must indict to the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn where Colpitts will be prosecuted. These laws are very unforgiving and require the services of an Experienced Massachusetts Sex Offense Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

Robert Kincaid of Swampscott, Massachusetts has been arrested and charged With Rape of a Child. The Salem News reports that starting last summer the thirty eight year old Kincaid started giving a fourteen year old girl alcohol after which he would Rape her. This occurred at least twenty times over a nine month period, the last time being last month. Kincaid was also charged with twenty counts of Procuring Alcohol for a Minor. The acts are alleged to have occurred at Kincaid’s apartment. The girl reported the incident to the police last Thursday night. Kincaid’s apartment was searched pursuant to a Search Warrant yesterday. He was arrested shortly thereafter. The charges are now pending in the Lynn District Court. The case will ultimately be prosecuted in the Essex County Superior Court in Salem. There is no indication that any physical evidence has been secured by the police.

Read Article:

http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_092230810.html?keyword=secondarystory

crime_scene.jpg

The article does not indicate whether or not Kincaid has been charged with Rape of a Child With Force or Statutory Rape. Both charges are felonies and are punishable by up to life in prison. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23 pertains to Statutory Rape. Massachusetts laws state that no one under the age of sixteen is capable of consenting. In this case it is suggested that Kincaid had sex with a fourteen year old. Even if the act is “consensual”, the victim’s “consent” is not a defense. On the other hand, Forcible Rape of a Child is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 22A. There is an element of force that must be proved by the district attorney if Kincaid is indicted under this statute. The decision of what statute to charge under depends largely on the information that the young girl provides to the prosecution. Kincaid’s defenses will depend on the evidence that the prosecution produces. Many of these cases are prosecuted with nothing more than the testimony of the complainant. In other words there is an absence of physical evidence. These cases are easier to win from the perspective of a Massachusetts Rape Defense Lawyer.

Continue Reading

| by

On December 17, 2009 Darlene Walker of Fitchburg was caught with two bags of heroin and three bags of cocaine secreted in her underwear. It is alleged that she intended to give the drugs to an inmate whom she intended to visit. Walker told authorities that she was being blackmailed by the inmate who threatened to show her husband sex tapes of her and her ex-husband. Prison officials refute this defense. They claim to have intercepted telephone conversations showing a romantic relationship between Walker and the inmate. Written correspondence also seems to corroborate these allegations. Walker has been charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute Class A and Class B drugs as well as Possession of Heroin and Possession of Cocaine. The case in pending in the Ayer District Court.

Read Article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_14799283

SBCC.jpg

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorney

I am often retained by clients who while waiting for someone to post bail spend a lot of time talking over prison phones. Many of them forget, notwithstanding the posted warnings, that the prison telephone calls made between an inmate and someone other than their lawyer can be recorded. Others think they can talk in “code” and that there senseless, contextless statements cannot be deciphered. Guess what happens with these calls? If you guessed that they are used in court as evidence against the defendant you are correct. For over twenty two years I have been representing people accused of committing crimes. I have literally represented well over one thousand people. Never has one of my clients talked the police or district attorney out of prosecuting them. Rather, the talkers usually provide more evidence for the prosecution and make their case worse. All criminal defense lawyers give the same advice. When arrested or incarcerated, do not talk. Nothing positive comes from it. Listen to your lawyer and keep quiet. I am willing to bet that Walker’s conversations with the inmate are what got her caught.

Continue Reading

| by

In Commonwealth v. Dwayne Williams, decided earlier today, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the decision of a district court judge suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence. The facts in Williams are as follows:

A Boston Police Officer responded to a call stating that a man (the defendant) had been stabbed and was being treated at the Boston Medical Center. The detective went to the hospital and tried to speak with him. The defendant refused to answer any questions about the stabbing. He had blood on his clothing. The clothing was placed in a plastic bag by hospital personnel. Over the defendant’s objection the officer took the clothes to the crime lab for testing. Inside one of the defendants boots the officer located some crack cocaine. The judge hearing the motion to suppress the seizure of the drugs agreed that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated and the evidence was suppressed.

The district attorney appealed the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Court agreed with the lower court judge and found that in this case the police presumptively violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by taking his clothes over his objection. The Court held that the defendant retained a possessory interest in his clothing. He never forfeited that right. There was no exception to the requirement that the police obtain a warrant prior to seizing and searching the clothes. Thus, suppression of the evidence was found proper.

4th Amendment.jpg

Massachusetts Search and Seizure Lawyer

As a Massachusetts Criminal Attorney defending Drug Cases I handle a large number of drug cases each year. One of the best tools to combat allegations of Drug Possession or Drug Distribution is the motion to suppress. Massachusetts laws and its constitution through Article 14 provide greater protections against police intrusions than does the United States Constitution. A successful motion to suppress usually results in the district attorney not being able to prosecute the case. A dismissal of the charges will often be the end result. This is why it is critical that you choose the right lawyer to defend you against drug charges.

Continue Reading

| by

Our Attorney successfully litigated a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant pleaded guilty to so much of a second-degree murder indictment that alleged manslaughter in the Suffolk County Superior Court. Apparently recognizing weaknesses in the case, the Commonwealth recommended that the defendant be sentenced to ten to eleven years in state prison. Prior to the plea hearing the defendant was aware that a witness had recanted his statement. However, during the plea hearing the prosecutor stated that a number of witnesses had recanted their statements. The defendant, uncertain as to what witnesses the prosecutor was referring to, inquired about the number of witnesses that actually changed their statements. The defendant secured a copy of the transcript from the plea hearing and pursued his claim.

Post conviction investigation revealed that one of the main witnesses for the Commonwealth informed a victim witness advocate that she had lied in the grand jury. Affidavits and witness testimony proved that this information was NEVER forwarded to the defendant or his attorney prior to the plea hearing. Following the hearing, the motion judge allowed the defendant’s motion finding that the Commonwealth had not produced exculpatory evidence.

Depending on the circumstance of a case, a defendant may argue that a guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently tendered because he or she was not aware of exculpatory evidence prior to the hearing. In this case, the exculpatory evidence was the witness’ statement that she lied in the grand jury. The United States Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea must be intelligently made because a waiver of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. See, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) [The issue of an intelligent waiver by the defendant is inextricably tied to the knowledge that he had at the time he pleaded guilty]; Commonwealth v. Correa, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (1997); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962); M.R.Crim.Proc. Rule 12; 43 C M.G.L.A.. [With respect to the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea, the court may consider whether coercion, deception, duress, improper inducements or trickery played a part in the defendant’s decision to plead guilty]; Huot v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 91, 96 (1973); Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 493 (1962) [A guilty plea is void if it is involuntary and unintelligent for any reason]. It is also well settled law in Massachusetts that the prosecutor has a continuing duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. Commonwealth v. Lam Hue To, 391 Mass. 301 (1984). Thus, if a defendant has grounds to claim that he or she was not given information that would have effected his or her decision to plead guilty, a viable motion to withdraw the plea should be filed in the appropriate cases.

Continue Reading